...because they could not identify willful intent to lie under oath.
You seem to have an uncanny knack of being able to mix up "political" messages with actual "criminal" law. Stop watching Fox pundits, and you may gain some IQ points.
Church is out....
- Thread starter Joes Place
- Start date
...because they could not identify willful intent to lie under oath.
You seem to have an uncanny knack of being able to mix up "political" messages with actual "criminal" law. Stop watching Fox pundits, and you may gain some IQ points.
Yes. Because the things they perjured themselves over were elements of material fact in a criminal investigation.
lol @ the idea that the GOP didn't go after Hillary with a criminal charge because they didn't want to get into the mud by charging political opponents when the most popular president among republicans in history campaigned on it and led his minions in chants of "lock her up"
also, you know who could have referred these people to Mueller for investigation of possible perjury? The GOP House over the past 2 years... they didn't do that because they were more interested in covering for the president and didn't think his tremendous dumb****ery would cost them the House in 2018.
also, you know what would have protected these people from possible perjury investigations and charges? Not lying. But then again they thought the same thing. They thought the GOP House would cover for them and they could bullshit all they wanted to and have no worries of it coming back to bite them in the ass.
also, you know who could have referred these people to Mueller for investigation of possible perjury? The GOP House over the past 2 years... they didn't do that because they were more interested in covering for the president and didn't think his tremendous dumb****ery would cost them the House in 2018.
also, you know what would have protected these people from possible perjury investigations and charges? Not lying. But then again they thought the same thing. They thought the GOP House would cover for them and they could bullshit all they wanted to and have no worries of it coming back to bite them in the ass.
Bill perjured himself under oath and lost his license to practice law. He committed a criminal act and yet wasn't prosecuted. That isn't a political message it is a material fact.
Perhaps you should back off on the Kool aid.
You mean like lying on the stand in trial surrounding sexual harrassment? That type of criminal investigation?
Smugness always comes back to bite hard.
Hillary absolutely behouod have been charged but Comey decided on his own that a prosectutor wouldn't pursue charges. He was justifiably fired for his role and it has become abundantly clear that the FBI was a political actor rather than an unbiased investigator of fact.
Head back to warchant. We don't need your worthless ass here, intelligent or not.
Sure thing brah. Too bad that isn't why Trump said he fired him.
Well I don't suck off an obese, draft dodging, Russian stooge so I have that going for me.
and don't forget the agency the GOP is eager to destroy for daring to look into Trump's Russia ties.
The ancient Greeks had a word for Trump’s type of government — and it isn’t pretty
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/01/ancient-greeks-word-trumps-type-government-isnt-pretty/
The dem I fear would be a more mainstream one. Libs keep saying we are all scared to death of AOC. No. Id be more scared of losing to a Biden candidacy honestly. Though Id be less scared of him if he was actually president then say a Kamala Harris, Booker, Warren, Bernie or Beto.
@NorthernHawkeye @IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life @gonegolfing look look look you got a new buddy!! Shit how could I forget @Speedway1!
I thought most people of moderately average intelligence understood what that meant.
Guess not.
Wrong again. Statute of limitations is still in force. Sessions and Wray could have brought charges if they disagreed. Sessions testified to the House committee, verbatim, that he could find no evidence of a crime. Ergo: he AGREED with Comey's conclusions.
It was the Whitewater investigation, over a finance deal.
Starr went well out of bounds on anything related to that.
Trump's finances, in contrast, are fully in play, because the Russians use financial bribes as a form of Kompromat.
Last edited:
I’m having a hard time getting a bead on what Is mainstream for the Dems right now. I listened to a debate recently on Intelligence Squared regarding the more progressive arm and the so called moderate arm and who should lead. The progressives in general seem to be picking up steam.
Sanders was pretty radical and he almost won the democratic nomination. The mainstream dem party seems to be shifting further left:
- all identity all the time.
- amplified hand-out party elements including “Medicare for all”
So we are clear, I didn’t vote for trump. He’s not a classical liberal style “conservative” and he’s a dick.
Last edited:
If they nominate Sanders, then I'd say you're correct.
But Clinton (Bill) and Obama were not 'far left'; neither was HRC.
Obama just matched the demographic signals for 'far left', but he wasn't anything close to Sanders or AOC (who really doesn't belong in the conversation until she demonstrates any ability to legislate or lead).
I'm thinking you're just skirting the question. If Mueller wanted to meet/interview someone from either party, yea, that's expected. But for a member of a party to initiate meetings in hopes of finding irregularities in testimony with the sole purpose of sticking it to the other party? Not sure that's how this is supposed to go.
Feel free to prove me wrong, and resort to insults while you're at it. It seems to be your MO.
The independent counsel is simply an investigative arm running independent of direct DOJ and WH interference, with Congressional oversight in that if DOJ refuses to release findings, they automatically go to Congress.
Handing over evidence from interviews, directly related to what's being investigated, is entirely "in scope". Anything and everything that Hillary Clinton testified to in hearings, was likewise, reviewable by DOJ. The independent counsel is no different than DOJ, other than it's set up to be independent from political influence.
If Mueller thinks the info being handed over (which he likely may already have in hand) is political and not criminally relevant, he'll ignore it.
It has nothing to do with "sticking it to the other party"; it has everything to do with identifying inconsistent testimony from government officials and private individuals who may be involved in criminal activities. Judging from the sheer number of indictments we already have in place, and the publicly available evidence of perjury, this is what you'd expect to happen if you place any value on Rule of Law.
So, yes, you're wrong.
This is why calls from Trumpers for "an independent counsel" investigation of Hillary Clinton are asinine: you create an independent counsel when the party in charge is effectively "investigating itself". If Clinton needed to be investigated under the Obama administration (or her own administration), you'd want an independent counsel to ensure she (or Obama) didn't meddle in the investigation. That's simply not the case when the opposing party holds the power. Then, the risk is they'll abuse that power to go after political enemies; but both parties know the pendulum of power swings both ways, and if that trigger is pulled, it will end up badly for everyone - additionally, the judiciary will step in and correct investigative misconduct.
This is why Jeff Sessions claims that "I need evidence of a crime" to the House investigators was quite illuminating - he may be a slimeball and have racist views on some things, but he understands what Rule of Law means, and that if you start abusing the system, there will be corrections and culpability for those actions. Up to and including criminal misconduct that could land investigators in jail, themselves. Sessions (and others) understand the difference between the American justice system, and what's in place in Banana Republics and Oligarchies. It's what sets us apart, and if you want America to remain Great, you have to maintain that system and its separation from political misconduct.
Luckily our system has a great deal of checks and balances that make it very hard for a President to undo our system. We aren't Hungary or Brazil. The only way to undo our system is to pack the courts with individuals who want to help you undo the system which is what I fear Trump is trying to do. The real danger is in nominating a large number of people to the supreme court who have extremist views on what the President is allowed to do. Trump has now put two people (One with very questionable ideas) on the Supreme Court. If Ginsburg has to be replaced while he's in power, I'm very afraid of how our future will look.
They aren’t dems, but they should be. Green Party is a lost cause.
Latest posts
-
-
Iowa Football Signees and Recruits to Compete at 2024 State Track
- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
